Cablevisionhttp://www.adweek.com/taxonomy/term/5717/all
enCanadian Regulators Back Off Plan to Impose a 'Netflix Tax'http://www.adweek.com/news/television/canadian-regulators-rescind-netflix-tax-161345
Robert Mann<img src="http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-detail/news_article/netflix-couple-hed-2014.jpg"> <p>
Canada&rsquo;s equivalent of the FCC has backed off trying to regulate Netflix by dropping a proposal that has become known as the &quot;Netflix tax.&quot; The<span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 20.3999996185303px;">&nbsp;move could have significant implications for other U.S. entertainment content providers doing business in Canada.</span></p>
<p>
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has ruled that Netflix <a href="https://gigaom.com/2014/11/07/netflix-tax-will-not-happen-says-canadas-broadcast-regulator/" target="_blank">will not have to pay fees</a> to subsidize Canadian TV productions nor will the company be subject to minimal Canadian content requirements.</p>
<p>
Canada&rsquo;s largest cable companies reportedly already provide 30 percent Canadian content, and Netflix features <a href="http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/03/netflix-versus-the-crtc-who-will-win" target="_blank">Canadian programs</a>, which has apparently satisfied the CRTC. Netflix has been doing business in Canada since 2010.</p>
<p>
CRTC Chairman Pierre Blais reportedly told La Presse news site that &quot;Regulating Netflix is the least of our worries.&quot; Last week the regulatory agency gave the go-ahead for Canadian <a href="http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=900669" target="_blank">television subscribers</a> to be able to change companies without giving thirty days notice.</p>
<p>
The CRTC has been conducting hearings to determine the extent of regulating U.S. content providers.&nbsp; One of their more controversial ideas revolves around <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/canada-may-unbundle-cable-tv-subscriptions-159911" target="_blank">unbundling cable TV subscriptions</a>, which could cut into profits of U.S. providers such as Disney and Comcast.</p>
<p>
But this current ruling could indicate a retreat from such protectionist efforts. Fostering local TV and movie production has been at the heart of government efforts to limit U.S. content cabled or streamed into foreign countries.</p>
<p>
Netflix and other U.S. content providers have been fighting government efforts to limit their global markets as emerging technologies overtake old laws that are not relevant in a digital world of on-demand entertainment.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>
In <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/china-clamps-down-amount-foreign-tv-streaming-its-country-160128" target="_blank">China</a>, government regulators are attempting to control the amount of U.S. television and movie content streamed to online subscribers. While in <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/french-resistance-crumbles-netflix-debut-160150" target="_blank">France</a>, Netflix avoided content regulation problems because its European headquarters are in Amsterdam, but the company faced widespread press criticism because of the perceived erosion of French culture with U.S. entertainment programming.</p>
TelevisionCablevisionCanadaComcastCRTCNetflixTue, 11 Nov 2014 13:00:02 +0000161345 at http://www.adweek.comNetflix's Hastings Slams Comcast in Blog Calling for Stronger Net Neutralityhttp://www.adweek.com/news/technology/netflixs-hastings-slams-comcast-blog-calling-stronger-net-neutrality-156442
Katy Bachman<img src="http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-detail/news_article/netflix-hed-2013.jpg"> <p>
Netflix CEO Reed Hastings took to his company&#39;s blog Thursday to call for Washington and the Federal Communications Commission to pass stronger net neutrality rules so that Netflix doesn&#39;t have to keep paying &quot;Internet tolls&quot; to powerful ISPs to deliver its content to consumers, like its recent deal with Comcast.</p>
<p>
In February, Netflix, the video service that sucks up a third of the Internet traffic in prime time,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/netflix-pays-bust-comcast-traffic-jam-155907" target="_blank">agreed to pay Comcast</a> for direct access to its network servers to help unclog the logjam Comcast had in delivering Netflix content to its subscribers.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
Though both sides at the time praised the deal as mutually beneficial, Hastings obviously isn&#39;t happy about it, calling it an &quot;arbitrary tax&quot; whether it&rsquo;s a fee paid to Comcast or intermediaries such as Cogent or Level 3.</p>
<p>
In his <a href="http://blog.netflix.com" target="_blank">blog post</a>, Hastings singled out Cablevision for practicing strong net neutrality, compared to Comcast which he said has been &quot;an industry leader in supporting weak net neutrality.&quot;</p>
<p>
&quot;Without strong net neutrality, big ISPs can demand potentially escalating fees for the interconnection required to deliver high quality service. The big ISPs can make these demands, driving up costs and prices for everyone else, because of their market position,&quot; Hastings wrote.</p>
<p>
Comcast, which is hoping to win approval from regulators to buy Time Warner Cable, disagreed with Hastings.</p>
<p>
&quot;There has been no company that has had a stronger commitment to openness of the Internet than Comcast,&quot; said David Cohen, Comcast&#39;s evp.&quot; We supported the FCC&rsquo;s Open Internet rules because they struck the appropriate balance between consumer protection and reasonable network management rights for ISPs. We are now the only ISP in the country that is bound by them.&quot;</p>
<p>
Cohen also disagreed that open Internet rules should apply to peering, the arrangements between Internet services like Netflix and intermediaries like Cogent.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;The Open Internet rules never were designed to deal with peering and Internet interconnection, which have been an essential part of the growth of the Internet for two decades. Providers like Netflix have always paid for their interconnection to the Internet and have always had ample options to ensure that their customers receive an optimal performance through all ISPs at a fair price. We are happy that Comcast and Netflix were able to reach an amicable, market-based solution to our interconnection issues and believe that our agreement demonstrates the effectiveness of the market as a mechanism to deal with these matters,&rdquo; Cohen said.</p>
TechnologyCablevisionComcastDavid CohenFederal Communications CommissionNet neutralityKaty Bachmanopen Internetopen Internet rulesFri, 21 Mar 2014 00:49:29 +0000156442 at http://www.adweek.comGovernment Sides With Broadcasters in Aereo Casehttp://www.adweek.com/news/television/government-sides-broadcasters-aereo-case-156079
Katy Bachman<img src="http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-detail/news_article/aereo-hed-2014.jpg"> <p>
The government is siding with broadcasters in their legal fight with Aereo. In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, the U.S. copyright office and the Department of Justice told the court Aereo has infringed on broadcast copyright and urged the court to reverse the second circuit&#39;s decision that <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/broadcasters-lose-aereo-appeals-court-148305 " target="_blank">refused to stop the service</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
The Supreme Court is <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/supreme-court-sets-date-aereo-case-155662" target="_blank">scheduled to hear oral arguments</a> in ABC v. Aereo on April 22.</p>
<p>
Aereo has argued that it is not engaged in broadcasting a &quot;public performance&quot; of broadcast signals, but that it is merely renting its subscribers the use of a tiny antenna to pull down the signal that is streamed over the Internet.</p>
<p>
But the Solicitor General, who represents the U.S. government before the Supreme Court, concluded just the opposite, defining Aereo&#39;s service as a public performance within the meaning of the Copyright Act.</p>
<p>
&quot;[Aereo] operates an integrated system, i.e., a &#39;device or process&#39; whose functioning depends on its customers&#39; shared use of common facilities. The fact that as part of that system [Aereo] uses unique copies and many individual transmissions does not alter the conclusion that it is retransmitting broadcast content &#39;to the public.&#39; Like its competitors, respondent [Aereo] therefore must obtain licenses to perform the copyrighted content on which its business relies,&quot; Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler wrote.</p>
<p>
The S.G. also argued that a ruling in favor of the broadcasters would not threaten legitimate cloud storage services because they are not &quot;public performances.&quot;</p>
<p>
&quot;A party who transmits a performance of a copyrighted work only to himself does not infringe the copyright because he does not transmit the performance &#39;to the public,&rsquo;&quot; Kneedler said. &quot;The conclusion ... should not call into question the legitimacy of businesses that use the Internet to provide new ways for consumers to store, hear, and view their own lawfully acquired copies of copyrighted works.&quot;</p>
<p>
As the Supreme Court date nears, several parties are filing amicus briefs with the court. Cablevision, which won a court case used by Aereo to defend its system, argued that Aereo is violating copyright law because it retransmits broadcast content without a license. However, Cablevision also argued that the court should not overturn the legal foundation established in that case which has allowed cloud-based technologies to flourish.</p>
TelevisionAbcAereoCablevisionCopyrightcopyright infringementKaty BachmanTue, 04 Mar 2014 15:19:13 +0000156079 at http://www.adweek.comBumpy Start for Oscars Live Streaming Initiativehttp://www.adweek.com/news/television/bumpy-start-oscars-live-streaming-initiative-156060
Anthony Crupi<img src="http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-detail/news_article/85-academy-awards-hed-2014.jpg"> <p>
ABC&rsquo;s first pass at live-streaming the Academy Awards didn&rsquo;t exactly go off without a hitch last night, as user demand knocked the service out of commission.</p>
<p>
The <a href="http://abc.go.com/watch-live" target="_blank">live video feed</a> streaming on the WatchABC app conked out during the network&rsquo;s Red Carpet coverage, an outage ABC chalked up to &ldquo;a traffic overload&rdquo; caused by demand that exceeded expectations. The service was up and running again at around 10:45 p.m. EST.</p>
<p>
ABC&rsquo;s pilot program was limited to its eight owned-and-operated stations in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. and Fresno, Calif. The live-stream also was available only to subscribers of a handful of cable and/or telco-TV services, including Comcast, Cox Communications, Charter, Cablevision, <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/legacy-cable-operators-austin-are-terrified-google-fiber-148570" target="_blank">Google Fiber</a> and AT&amp;T U-verse.</p>
<p>
Thus, if you met one condition&mdash;say, you live in the greater New York metropolitan area and are served by the flagship WABC-7&mdash;you were still out of luck if you also happen to be a Time Warner Cable, DirecTV or Dish Network subscriber.</p>
<p>
<strong>UPDATE: </strong>According to Nielsen fast national data, the <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/two-oscars-biggest-sponsors-have-decided-not-return-year-155401" target="_blank">86th Annual Academy Awards</a> averaged 43.7 million total viewers, up 8 percent from 40.3 million a year ago. The ceremony drew a 13.1 rating among adults 18-49, up a tenth of a ratings point versus&nbsp;<a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/slight-bump-early-oscars-ratings-147535" target="_blank">last year&rsquo;s </a>broadcast.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
Deliveries peaked at 8:30 p.m., when ABC averaged 45.3 million viewers and a 13.6 in the demo. During that same interval, the broadcast drew a 16.0 rating among women 18-49 and an 18.2 with women 25-54.</p>
<p>
Due to the nature of live programming and the fact that fast nationals are not time-zone adjusted, the early ratings are approximate. The final live-plus-same-day ratings should be available on Tuesday morning.</p>
<p>
According to media buyers, ABC sold out its Oscars inventory earlier than it ever had before, commanding an average unit price of around <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/blue-chippers-return-red-carpet-155539" target="_blank">$1.85 million per 30-second spot</a>. The last spots were claimed just before Halloween.</p>
<p>
Per Kantar Media estimates, last year&rsquo;s Oscars broadcast generated $88.3 million in ad sales inventory. Given ABC&rsquo;s self-imposed limits on spot loads and the average price increase, last night&rsquo;s show was expected to net $96 million in ad dollars.</p>
Television86th Annual Academy AwardsAbcAcademy AwardsAppsAT&T U-VerseAnthony CrupiCharterComcastCoxDirectvDISH NetworkEllen DeGeneresGoogle FiberLive-StreamingNetworksOscarsRatingsTime Warner CableVideoWABC-7Watch ABCMon, 03 Mar 2014 17:21:46 +0000156060 at http://www.adweek.comMatt Seiler Is Out to Remake and Automate the Media Agency Worldhttp://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/matt-seiler-out-remake-and-automate-media-agency-world-155047
Noreen O'Leary<img src="http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-detail/news_article/fea-matt-seiler-hed-2014.jpg"> <p>
Facebook global sales chief Carolyn Everson knew to brace herself for some hair-raising skiing in the Utah mountains with Matt Seiler, a weekend guest of hers at this year&rsquo;s Sundance Film Festival. When the two skied together previously, the Mediabrands CEO always sought out the toughest trails&mdash;whether Everson was ready for them or not.</p>
<p>
&ldquo;I don&rsquo;t think I can do it, but he pushes me to try and the next thing you know I&rsquo;m down the hill,&rdquo; she laughs. &ldquo;Matt just doesn&rsquo;t like to do things the easy way or the same way. And he challenges himself and his agency teams the same way to move as fast and as differently as they possibly can for the betterment of the business.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
It&rsquo;s the perfect analogy. Seiler gets colleagues to tackle the dizzying heights of a new challenge head-on as he pushes them to exceed their own expectations. Take programmatic buying: <a href="/node/151537">Interpublic Group&rsquo;s Mediabrands</a> is arguably the most aggressive among industry players in pushing for automation. In 2012, Seiler set a goal for executives at Mediabrands&rsquo; agencies (UM, Initiative and BPN) to automate all U.S. media buying&mdash;not just digital&mdash;to 50 percent in two years. (After they &ldquo;freaked&rdquo; out, he compromised and gave them three years to meet that goal.)</p>
<p>
So far so good. In year one they exceeded their mandate, which was heavily digital; now into year two, video will be introduced along with other media. By year three, the agencies will be well into TV. (By 2017, G14 regions&mdash;those outside North America that are considered most important to marketers&mdash;need to hit that 50 percent benchmark.)</p>
<p>
To do that, sibling unit Magna Global was restructured to become Mediabrands&rsquo; central buying hub, with technology, analytics and data capture brought together in one place. A consortium of media owners was created, including A+E Networks, AOL, Cablevision, Clear Channel Media and Entertainment, ESPN and Tribune, to sell more traditional inventory through automation.</p>
<p>
&ldquo;With Magna, we wanted to automate whatever we possibly could in the buying process not just because the industry desperately needed to have it done but also because the move toward automation allows for much more investment on higher-touch, higher- value engagement with media owners,&rdquo; explains Seiler, whose intense gaze underscores his restless, inquisitive nature. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s what we call the custom and sponsorship side of things&mdash;more of working in concert with the media owner to create a very valuable experience&mdash;so it&rsquo;s not just about buying an adjacency.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
Clear Channel CEO <a href="/node/154510">Bob Pittman</a> likes that ability to free up customized plans. &ldquo;Matt has done some of the best thinking about technology and how we can use it to better serve Magna and its clients,&rdquo; he says.</p>
<p>
&ldquo;Matt&rsquo;s not a media dork or specialist,&rdquo; says Jay Sears, svp, marketing development at <a href="/node/153589">Rubicon Project</a>, Mediabrands&rsquo; advertising automation partner. &ldquo;Because of that, he brings Mediabrands buying to the cool kids table. Automation brings efficiencies to the salt mines. As an account guy, Matt is still client-focused and can explain automation to clients in the plain English they understand.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
For better perspective on the kind of innovation Seiler has introduced in his three years atop Mediabrands it helps to know why the former strategist and account man moved into media 10 years ago and why Mediabrands&rsquo; pay-for-performance model is fundamental to everything that happens there. In previous jobs, Seiler saw clients seeking an entity to take total responsibility of their business. That was challenging for holding companies because of conflicts, and because it undermined their purpose; operating units invariably undertook tasks with the bias of their particular disciplines. Media agencies, on the other hand, could be an extension of clients&rsquo; marketing departments.</p>
<p>
&ldquo;Media seemed like the perfect altitude at which to manage a client&rsquo;s business mostly because that was where the concentration of their spend was,&rdquo; Seiler reasons. &ldquo;I thought the best way to prove that commitment to extending [a] client&rsquo;s marketing department was to get paid exactly as they do. With things like automation, pay-for-performance leads it.&rdquo;</p>
<!--pagebreak-->
<p>
<img alt="" src="/files/fea-matt-seiler-hed-02-2014.jpg" style="width: 652px; height: 367px; margin-bottom: 10px;" /><br />
<em>Photo: Christopher Gabello&nbsp;</em></p>
<p>
Still, necessity plays a role in Seiler&rsquo;s motivation. &ldquo;Mediabrands can&rsquo;t lead with scale so innovation attracts clients looking for that,&rdquo; says one agency veteran. &ldquo;But they&rsquo;re challenged to win business when a decision maker believes size drives pricing. That&rsquo;s not where Mediabrands wins.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
Seiler wants to be the technology-driven Nasdaq to the industry&rsquo;s more traditional NYSE floor traders. Driving automation efficiencies into the process doesn&rsquo;t concern him. Agency competitors are either paid on commission, where they have to spend as much money as possible, or in man hours where they need to keep as many people on a client&rsquo;s business as they can. &ldquo;But if you&rsquo;re paid for performance, all you care about is, &lsquo;How&rsquo;s the client doing?&rsquo;&rdquo; Seiler notes. &ldquo;Are they achieving their business objectives? If we can do that with fewer buying bodies and then reinvest on custom and sponsorship where we know things are much stickier, the better.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
Today, half of Mediabrands agencies are on pay-for-performance contracts, which tie agency creative teams&rsquo; financial incentives to clients&rsquo; business results.</p>
<p>
Case in point: Initiative Germany&rsquo;s efforts to reelect Europe&rsquo;s most powerful politician last fall. Chancellor Angela Merkel was projecting a 23 percentage point win. Achieving that meant Initiative would get paid according to a regular contract; if she didn&rsquo;t get reelected, the agency wouldn&rsquo;t receive a single Euro. A return beyond 23 percent meant Initiative would share in the surplus. The result surpassed even Merkel&rsquo;s own polls. Her Christian Democrats and allies, the Christian Social Union in Bavaria, pulled in 41.5 percent of the popular vote. Initiative realized an additional 17 percent in revenue beyond what was negotiated upfront.</p>
<p>
&ldquo;We weren&rsquo;t behaving like a media agency. We were a crusader on Angela&rsquo;s behalf, which meant we came up with so many innovations outside normal expectations,&rdquo; says Seiler. &ldquo;People do what they&rsquo;re paid to do. If you pay them to build clients&rsquo; business, that&rsquo;s what they&rsquo;ll do. If you pay them to come up with a media plan, that&rsquo;s also what they&rsquo;ll do.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
Seiler adds the reason for much of that innovation reflex is the diversity of the people around him, execs who, like him, don&rsquo;t possess traditional media agency DNA. The global chiefs of Mediabrands&rsquo; three networks all have strategy in their backgrounds: Daryl Lee at UM had been a McKinsey consultant; Jim Elms at Initiative was a media supervisor who worked with Seiler when the two were at Goodby, Silverstein &amp; Partners; and Mauricio Sabogal at BPN spent time at Nielsen. Jacki Kelley, Mediabrands&rsquo; North American president, global clients, had worked for media owners like Yahoo, USA Today and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, and Jim Hytner, CEO and president, global clients for Mediabrands G14 markets, was a client at Barclays and Coca-Cola.</p>
<p>
Last year Seiler restructured those top management ranks to upend silos, reorganizing away from P&amp;L and putting a focus on strategy. Agency heads were put in charge of strategies and products while Mediabrands assumed management of P&amp;L, with execs like Kelley, Hytner and Andrea Suarez, who runs the world markets region, leading the way.</p>
<p>
&ldquo;The level of collaboration that came from that shift has been mind-blowing while our competitors still have hundreds of P&amp;Ls,&rdquo; says Kelley. &ldquo;If you&rsquo;re not up for transformation, a taste for change, fire in the belly, don&rsquo;t come work here.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
When Seiler went to IPG CEO <a href="/node/151408">Michael Roth</a> to explain that change and its associated costs, the holding company chief asked him to promise not to restructure again anytime soon. &ldquo;I said I wish I could promise that, but I can&rsquo;t,&rdquo; recalls Seiler. &ldquo;The world is changing around us at such speed, you have to have the flexibility to address it all.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
That penchant for rogue reinvention may be in Seiler&rsquo;s genes. At the age of 42, his father, a major influence, got bored with his prestigious job as the associate dean at the Harvard Business School and decided to study architecture. Later in life, he studied mediation, arbitration and litigation and became a mediator until his death at 81.</p>
<p>
Seiler&rsquo;s own career has taken him through account work on everything from Procter &amp; Gamble, BMW (which was his dream client) and PepsiCo brands at Benton &amp; Bowles, Ogilvy &amp; Mather, Ammirati &amp; Puris, GS&amp;P, BBDO and Omnicom before moving over to the media side, first as president, CEO at PHD, then as global chief at UM. (When he wanted to move out of his job as chief insight and integration officer at Omnicom and back into an operational role in media, he called Omnicom CEO John Wren. An hour later, Seiler, with no previous media agency management experience, was offered the PHD job.)</p>
<p>
Bill Katz, chairman of Mediabrands&rsquo; partner Visible World, which creates targeted TV ad solutions, was president/CEO at BBDO in New York and Seiler&rsquo;s boss when he worked at the shop in the late &rsquo;90s. Katz was part of the decision to offer account exec Seiler the agency&rsquo;s top strategic planning role and was initially taken aback when Seiler told him he wanted to shift to the media side.</p>
<p>
&ldquo;He was self-trained, an account person with a creative mind and natural instincts about what we were trying to do and say,&rdquo; recalls Katz. &ldquo;I was surprised about his move to media until he explained it to me. Back then it was simply about the distribution of a message, but he saw media platforms changing quickly. He wasn&rsquo;t the only one, but, given his background, he saw it from a different level. It wasn&rsquo;t just about distribution, it was becoming about the way the message affected behavior.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
Concurs Facebook&rsquo;s Everson: &ldquo;Matt always values and knows that at the end of the day ideas are always critically important. His background at creative agencies is really relevant to his success on the media side.&rdquo;</p>
Advertising & BrandingA+E NetworksAolautomationCablevisionCarolyn EversonNoreen O'LearyEspnMagazine ContentMatt SeilerMediabrandsTribuneMon, 20 Jan 2014 02:32:17 +0000155047 at http://www.adweek.comThursday Night Is a Game Changer for NFL Networkhttp://www.adweek.com/news/television/thursday-night-game-changer-nfl-network-152116
Anthony Crupi<img src="http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-detail/news_article/nfl-coin-flip_0.jpg"> <p>
<a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/nfl-network-beefs-its-2012-slate-137973" target="_blank">Adding five Thursday Night Football games</a> to its lineup has paid handsome dividends for NFL Network, enabling the league&rsquo;s in-house TV outlet to boost its carriage fees by as much as 41 percent.</p>
<p>
According to SNL Kagan estimates, NFL Network in 2013 charges operators an average affiliate fee of $1.34 per subscriber per month, a sharp increase from the $0.95 a pop the channel commanded a year ago. The new pricing scheme now places NFL Net second among all cable properties, surpassing TNT ($1.29) and the non-ad supported Disney Channel ($1.15).</p>
<p>
At the top of the carriage fee food chain is ESPN, which rakes in a princely fee of $5.45 per sub per month, up from $5.01 in 2012.</p>
<p>
Given NFL Network&rsquo;s <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/touchdown-time-warner-cable-cuts-deal-carry-nfl-network-143937" target="_blank">recent subscriber gains</a> (the channel now reaches 69.7 million homes, up 10 percent from the year-ago 63.2 million), overall affiliate revenue is expected to increase 56 percent to $1.12 billion.</p>
<p>
The 2012 campaign marked the first in which NFL Net carried nearly a full season&rsquo;s worth of live games. Over the course of 13 telecasts, the <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/nfl-network-scares-record-ratings-146110" target="_blank">network averaged 6.35 million viewers and a 2.6 rating</a> in the adults 18-49 demo.</p>
<p>
While <a href="http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork" target="_blank">NFL Network</a> seems to get fed the league&rsquo;s table scraps (last year&rsquo;s games included a lopsided 31-13 scrum between the 1-7 Kansas City Chiefs and the 4-4 San Diego Chargers), a handful of early games scared up big numbers. The first TNF game of 2012, an NFC North grudge match between the Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers, delivered 8.56 million viewers and a 3.8 in the dollar demo, while the Browns and Ravens battled on Sept. 27 in front of a national TV audience of 8.05 million viewers. A late defensive stand by Baltimore secured a win over division rival Cleveland; per Nielsen, the game averaged a 3.3 among the 18-49 set.</p>
<p>
The live-plus-same-day ratings do not take into account local deliveries in each team&rsquo;s home market.</p>
<p>
Naturally, the beefed-up NFL slate helped boost the network&rsquo;s fourth-quarter ratings. NFL Net averaged 751,000 total viewers in Q4 prime, up 12 percent versus the prior-year 668,000. The dollar demo was up 13 percent to 378,000 adults 18-49.</p>
<p>
Per Kagan data, NFL Net last year booked approximately $200.7 million in total ad sales revenue, more than double what it took in over the course of 2011 ($99.6 million).</p>
<p>
RBC Capital Markets analyst David Bank projects that NFL Net will book as much as $335 million in ad sales commitments this year, which translates to an increase of 67 percent. Looking further down the road, Bank said the channel is on track to generate $887 million in sponsor dollars in 2017.</p>
<p>
If NFL Net continues to function as an ATM (Kagan projects positive operating cash flow of $81.5 million for the channel in 2013, a nice swing from the negative $325.4 million posted a year ago), the league may ultimately decide to shelve any future plans to offer an <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/nfl-creates-new-thursday-night-package-133287" target="_blank">eight-game cable package</a>. Before the NFL awarded the five extra Thursday night games to its own property, everyone from Fox Sports to Turner Sports to NBC Sports was said to be sniffing around for a deal.</p>
<p>
NFL Network&rsquo;s TNF coverage kicks off Sept. 12 with a Jets-Patriots hate-fest.&nbsp;Among the more promising games on the <a href="http://www.nfl.com/schedules/2013/TNF" target="_blank">schedule</a> are a Giants-Bears defensive brawl (Oct. 10) and a Dec. 12 Chargers-Broncos showdown that could have playoff implications.</p>
TelevisionAffiliate FeesCableCablevisionDavid BanksFox SportsAnthony CrupiNBC SportsNflNFL NetworkRatingsRBC Capital MarketsSNL KaganSportsTime Warner CableTurner SportsThu, 29 Aug 2013 21:38:51 +0000152116 at http://www.adweek.comViacom Asks Federal Court to Toss $1 Billion Cablevision Suithttp://www.adweek.com/news/television/viacom-asks-federal-court-toss-1-billion-cablevision-suit-149325
Maura McGowan<p>
Viacom is calling for a federal court to toss out Cablevision&#39;s <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/la-carte-wars-cablevision-sues-viacom-bundling-147565" target="_blank">$1 billion lawsuit</a>&nbsp;alleging&nbsp;that the company&#39;s policy of bundling unpopular channels violates antitrust law, according to <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/viacom-demands-judge-dismiss-cablevisions-519516" target="_blank">The Hollywood Reporter</a>.</p>
<p>
The lawsuit claims that Viacom threatened to impose a <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/cablevision-viacom-war-could-cost-bundle-147826" target="_blank">10-figure penalty</a> if Cablevision did not license little-watched channels like Palladia, MTV Hits and VH1 Classic along with its major networks MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central. Cablevision contends that this policy sapped bandwidth it could have used for other channels, but Viacom rejects he characterization of its bundling policy as illegal and&nbsp;contends that Cablevision is bound by its contract.</p>
<p>
The media company has gone on the attack, accusing Cablevision of contradicting itself and arguing that the TV provider has failed to demonstrate grievances. &ldquo;This suit is a transparent ploy by Cablevision to renegotiate its agreement with Viacom,&rdquo; a Viacom spokesperson said. &ldquo;Its decisions to raise prices for consumers and reject carriage for smaller networks have nothing to do with its Viacom contract. Our suite offering provides consumers greater choice at lower cost.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
Cablevision returned serve, arguing that&nbsp;Viacom&rsquo;s assertions &ldquo;are predictable and do not change the fact that its all-or-nothing approach to selling programming is illegal and anti-consumer.&rdquo; A spokesperson went on to accuse Viacom of dealing from the bottom of the deck: &ldquo;By forcing Cablevision&rsquo;s customers to pay for more than a dozen unpopular channels&mdash;or pay a penalty of more than $1 billion&mdash;in order to receive the channels they actually want, Viacom is abusing its market power. Viacom is using our customers as pawns in its game to limit choice and competition and, ultimately, it is the consumer who suffers the consequences of Viacom&rsquo;s illegal actions.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
Viacom and Cablevision were co-defendants&mdash;along with Time Warner, Comcast, DirecTV, Walt Disney, and News Corp.&rsquo;s Fox Entertainment Group&mdash;in a similar case that was thrown out by a federal court of appeals in March 2012.&nbsp;</p>
TelevisionbundlingCablevisionLawsuitsViacomThu, 09 May 2013 16:09:33 +0000149325 at http://www.adweek.comCablevision, Viacom War Could Cost a Bundlehttp://www.adweek.com/news/television/cablevision-viacom-war-could-cost-bundle-147826
Sam Thielman<p>
Cablevision, which is <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/la-carte-wars-cablevision-sues-viacom-bundling-147565" target="_blank">suing Viacom</a> for illegally bundling its networks, on Thursday released a heavily-redacted version of its complaint against the cable conglomerate, which includes the charge that Viacom threatened to impose a fine in excess of $1 billion if Cablevision didn&rsquo;t carry its entire suite of networks.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
For anyone hoping to get a fly-on-the-wall perspective of how carriage negotiations are conducted, think again. Thanks to Viacom&rsquo;s legal team, anything of material interest has been inked over into oblivion.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
The lack of transparency makes it difficult to conclude that Viacom has been trying to strong-arm the cable operator. It seems rather unlikely, as bundling is usually a more cooperative effort. &ldquo;The truth is they do not typically force multichannel operators to take the whole bundle, they just give them discounts when they take multiple networks and more discounts when they hit certain penetration hurdles,&rdquo; said SNL Kagan analyst Derek Baine in <a href="http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-17067052-12849" target="_blank">a report</a> on the suit. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s how they have always gotten around this argument in the past.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
If there is indeed a significant gap between the agreed-upon fee for the bundle and&nbsp;Viacom&rsquo;s pricy a la carte option, there is no way to prove it without the relevant data. Because Viacom asked that all pricing information be redacted from the complaint, Cablevision is only at liberty to charge that the a la carte penalty is anywhere between $1 billion and $9 billion, and that that total is &ldquo;more than Cablevision&rsquo;s entire programming budget&rdquo; for 2013.</p>
<p>
Viacom responded by characterizing the redacted figure as &ldquo;nothing more than rhetorical math, an inflated, irrelevant number manufactured to create artificial sticker shock.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>
Per Kagan estimates, Cablevision pays $76.8 million per year for the eight must-have MTVN channels (MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, et al) and approximately $38.8 million for the baker&rsquo;s dozen it does not particularly value. All told, the operator forks over an annual fee of $115.5 million for the entire bundle. Again, without knowing the duration of the carriage deal or the actual dollar amount of the alleged a la carte penalty, very little substantive intel can be culled from the complaint.</p>
<p>
Still, the dual-revenue stream hides a lot of blemishes when the advertising revenue starts drying up. Viacom has been dealing with falling ratings for consecutive upfront seasons at Nickelodeon and now has to leverage under-deliveries at MTV as well. Naturally, that translates to an artificial tightening of its top-shelf inventory as it heads into the 2013-14 upfront marketplace. If both nets want to achieve significant volume increases, they almost certainly will have to do so at the expense of the CPMs.</p>
<p>
All of which would suggest that Viacom is best served by remaining aggressive as it negotiates its affiliate deals. Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone is in the habit of characterizing CEO Philippe Dauman as&nbsp;&ldquo;a great warrior,&rdquo; and investors can only hope&nbsp;that this is an accurate assessment&mdash;because Viacom and Cablevision are going to war.</p>
TelevisionCableCablevisionCarriage DisputesPhilippe DaumanSumner RedstoneSam ThielmanSat, 09 Mar 2013 00:23:06 +0000147826 at http://www.adweek.comA la Carte Wars: Cablevision Sues Viacom for Bundlinghttp://www.adweek.com/news/television/la-carte-wars-cablevision-sues-viacom-bundling-147565
Sam Thielman<p>
In an apparent bid to set a legal precedent, Cablevision on Tuesday announced that it has filed a lawsuit against Viacom for &ldquo;bundling,&rdquo; the practice by which programmers force distributors to carry low-rated channels as a condition of carrying their more popular networks.</p>
<p>
&ldquo;The manner in which Viacom sells its programming is illegal, anti-consumer and wrong,&rdquo; Cablevision charged in a statement, adding that the parent company of MTV and Nickelodoen &ldquo;effectively forces Cablevision&rsquo;s customers to pay for and receive little-watched channels in order to get the channels they actually want.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
Among the smaller networks named in the complaint are&nbsp;Palladia, MTV Hits and VH1 Classic. The latter channel closed out 2012 as the third least-watched outlet on the cable dial, averaging a mere 24,000 viewers in total day. Palladia and MTV Hits are not sufficiently distributed to be officially rated by Nielsen.</p>
<p>
According to Cablevision, Viacom forces it to carry 14 low-rated channels in return for the rights to carry franchise networks such as MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, VH1 and BET. Most of the outlets in question are spinoffs (MTV Jams, Nicktoons, etc.).</p>
<p>
Viacom is hardly alone in practicing this sort of strategic bundling. To some extent, every multi-network cable programmer finds a way to piggyback smaller channels atop their more desirable properties. &nbsp;</p>
<p>
In seeking declaratory relief, Cablevision would be sprung from its current contract with Viacom, a witching-hour deal that both parties signed off on just two months ago. The operator is also looking to win a permanent injunction that would require Viacom to sell all of its networks to it on an a la carte basis.</p>
<p>
Another injunction hopes to force Cablevision to carry Viacom&rsquo;s networks while they negotiate a new contract.</p>
<p>
Agreements between a large cable company like Viacom and an MSO the size of Cablevision&mdash;as of last fall, it is the ninth-largest operator in the country, boasting 3.25 million subscribers&mdash;are traditionally multi-year and measured in hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars.</p>
<p>
While the complaint was filed under seal, it is believed to include the financial details of the Viacom-Cablevision carriage agreement.</p>
<p>
Viacom has been at the center of at least one high-profile dispute in the last year, butting heads with <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/no-more-viacom-directv-141804" target="_blank">DirecTV</a>&nbsp;for nine days in July.&nbsp;The eventual resolution appeared to favor Viacom heavily inasmuch as it walked away having secured carriage for its flegdling premium movie network, Epix.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
Analysts note that Viacom has worn a bull&rsquo;s-eye on its back for some time now. &ldquo;Viacom is in the weakest position of all the network groups in terms of ratings and brand health,&rdquo; Bernstein Research senior analyst Todd Juenger wrote Tuesday in a note to investors. &ldquo;At the same time, it is the most aggressive at making its content available via online sources (that go around the traditional distributors). When a distributor decides to take a stand, pick a fight, Viacom is the obvious target.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
Chad Gutstein, COO of independent cable network Ovation, praised Cablevision for filing the suit. &quot;The television market in the United States is not a free market,&quot; he said. &quot;Everything&#39;s dominated by regulations.&quot; Ovation was unceremoniously dropped by Time Warner Cable earlier this year, supposedly in response to the rising cost of cable subscriptions (though Ovation said now and then that Time Warner refused to negotiate). &quot;They have the luxury to say no because we&#39;re an independent and they&#39;re a bully,&quot; Gutstein said. &quot;They&#39;d never do this to a bundled player.&quot;</p>
<p>
&quot;Every day, Ovation has to earn its distribution and its slot,&quot; said Gutstein. &quot;VH1 Classic doesn&#39;t have to earn a damn thing. Logo doesn&#39;t have to earn a damn thing. They&#39;re bundled with Nickelodeon and with MTV.&quot;</p>
<p>
Viacom came out swinging at the news of lawsuit, spinning what Cablevision calls a strongarm tactic as a competitive pricing structure. &ldquo;At the request of distributors, Viacom and other programmers have long offered discounts to those who agree to provide additional network distribution,&rdquo; the net fired back in an unsigned statement. &ldquo;Reflecting the highly competitive cable programming business, these arrangements have been upheld by a number of federal courts and on appeal.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
Viacom added that it would &ldquo;vigorously defend this transparent attempt by Cablevision to use the courts to renegotiate our existing two-month-old agreement.&rdquo; Sources at the company reiterated that they believed legal precedent was firmly on their side.</p>
<p>
Juenger agrees. &ldquo;[A]fter the DirecTV dispute &hellip; the outcome was viewed by many as battle-tested proof positive of the sturdiness of affiliate fees, both for Viacom and the whole sector,&rdquo; he said.</p>
<p>
For his part, Gutstein disputed the characterization of the bundled prices as a discount. &quot;If I were to offer to sell you a Snickers bar, a Milky Way bar and some Jujubes for $3.25, but if you only wanted to buy the snickers and the milky way I&#39;d charge you $10,000, you&#39;d definitely be getting a huge discount for the Jujubes,&quot; he said. &quot;And I don&#39;t actually think the scale is too far off on that.&quot;</p>
Televisiona la carteAffiliate DealsBernstein ResearchbundlingCableSam ThielmanCable OperatorsCablevisioncarriage feesEpixLegal ScrapsMTVNickelodeonProgrammersTodd JuengerViacomTue, 26 Feb 2013 20:43:22 +0000147565 at http://www.adweek.comWill ABC and Univision’s Cable News Channel Sell?http://www.adweek.com/news/television/will-abc-and-univision-s-cable-news-channel-sell-147240
Sam Thielman<p>
If you&rsquo;re looking to buy time on Fusion, ABC and Univision&rsquo;s new joint venture English-language news and lifestyle channel, you&rsquo;ll need to look up <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/geri-wang-lead-abc-sales-114755" target="_blank">ABC&rsquo;s president of sales and marketing, Geri Wang</a>. Reps for the new cable network say that Fusion will eventually boast its own dedicated sales organization, but in the near term Wang&rsquo;s team will handle the heavy lifting.</p>
<p>
Already, ABC sales execs are briefing clients on the network, which is slated to launch in the second half of 2013. Whether Fusion will be take part in a formal upfront presentation remains to be seen.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
Much about Fusion is entirely new; it&rsquo;s the first time, for example, that any group has launched a Hispanic-focused news network with programming entirely in English. It&rsquo;s also new to the cable dial, in that it&rsquo;s not going to be a retrofit for a pre-existing network.</p>
<p>
While ABC has not disclosed its target carriage fee, it is likely that Fusion will look to land a rate between 10 cents and 12 cents per subscriber per month. The hybrid nature of the network is a decidedly unknown quality; as such, Fusion is expected to write affiliate deals well below the rates charged by established Hispanic-targeted news networks like&nbsp;CNN in Espa&ntilde;ol (a princely 58 cents per sub per month) and sports outlets like Fox Deportes (22 cents).</p>
<p>
Univision&rsquo;s own standalone sports net, <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/univision-deportes-poised-kick-137807" target="_blank">Univision Deportes</a>, charges operators an average affiliate fee of 29 cents/sub/month, per SNL Kagan.</p>
<p>
Naturally, the potential upside for ABC and Univision is tremendous. U.S. Hispanics represent a decidedly robust consumer cohort, with an aggregate buying power that&rsquo;s expected to reach the $1.5 trillion mark by 2015. But as far as marketing dollars are concerned, cable is something of an outlier. Per Kantar Media, cable nets lin 2011 took in some $227 million in Hispanic-targeted ad spend, a fraction of the $3.49 billion the broadcast networks raked in.</p>
<p>
The network has distribution on&nbsp;Cox, Cablevision, AT&amp;T U-verse and Charter systems, but has not cut deals with cable giants Comcast and Time Warner Cable or satellite heavies DirecTV and Dish Network. Comcast in particular may be less enthusiastic about adding Fusion to its channel lineup, as Univision is in direct competition with NBCUniversal&rsquo;s Telemundo.</p>
<p>
Meanwhile, Dish Network last year said it would carry Univision Deportes as well as networks devoted to news and telenovelas.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
Still, the deals that are in place give Fusion a foothold in the top five Hispanic-populated states: California, Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois.</p>
<p>
Based in Miami, the joint venture was <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/abc-news-and-univision-launch-joint-news-venture-140095" target="_blank">first announced in May 2012</a>. Walt Disney Co. veteran Tom Finn in January signed on as the start-up&rsquo;s chief financial officer; a CEO is expected to be named soon.</p>
TelevisionAbcAT&T U-VerseCableCablevisionCharterSam ThielmanCoxDirectvDISH NetworkFusionGeri WangHispanicNBCUniversalTelemundoTime Warner CableTom FinnUnivisionUpfrontTue, 12 Feb 2013 20:25:04 +0000147240 at http://www.adweek.comWitching-Hour Deal for Cablevision and Viacomhttp://www.adweek.com/news/television/witching-hour-deal-cablevision-and-viacom-146212
Sam Thielman<p>
Cablevision and Viacom have finally reached a deal, and not a moment too soon.</p>
<p>
With about an hour to go before Times Square was set to usher in the New Year to the strains of &quot;Auld Lang Syne,&quot; the cable provider and the entertainment conglomerate have hammered out a deal to keep SpongeBob and the Situation lit up in New Jersey and Long Island.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
It&#39;s the third cable agreement of the day: earlier, NBCUniversal signed a multi-year pact with the National Cable Television Cooperative (NCTC), a deal which will mark the first time the cable provider will pay a fee to retransmit NBC broadcast; and Charter, which provides cable services to much of the Southeast, signed a multi-year deal with Disney that includes the upcoming ABC News/Univision joint venture network.</p>
<p>
It&#39;s neither the first time this year Viacom has been in protracted negotiations with a cable operator, nor the first time in recent history the two companies have clashed. Viacom and DirecTV entered <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news-gallery/television/advertising-wars-directv-and-viacom-141827#directv-brings-a-spoon-to-a-knife-fight-1" target="_blank">a lengthy dispute </a>earlier this year, centering mostly on distribution of the company&#39;s new cable channel, Epix. Last year Viacom and Cablevision fought tooth and nail over the latter&#39;s iPad app, going all the way to court.</p>
<p>
As with the last Viacom/Cablevision showdown, both sides are keeping mum about terms, although they describe the deal as a multi-year arrangement.</p>
<p>
Now please, people who were negotiating this thing, go have a drink.</p>
TelevisionCableCableCablevisionDirectvDisneySam ThielmanNCTCViacomTue, 01 Jan 2013 04:39:30 +0000146212 at http://www.adweek.comDisney and Cablevision Sign Carriage Agreementhttp://www.adweek.com/news/television/disney-and-cablevision-sign-carriage-agreement-144186
Sam Thielman<p>
Disney and Cablevision have signed a new multi-year carriage deal with no visible drama at all (hear that, <a href="http://m.npr.org/news/Arts+%26+Life/161019358" target="_blank">Dish Network</a>, DirecTV, <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/no-more-viacom-directv-141804" target="_blank">Viacom</a> and AMC?). The pact includes several new authenticated on-demand products from Cablevision, branded Watch (as opposed to TV Everywhere, the slogan for authenticated digital services being pushed by Time Warner).</p>
<p>
The deal includes ESPN 3D, the as-yet-untitled ABC News/Univision news channel joint venture and the rest of the approximately 70 linear services run by the Walt Disney Co.&mdash;Disney XD, ABC Family, ESPN, the Disney Channel, and so on.</p>
<p>
One of the more interesting wrinkles in this agreement is a deal for ABC On Demand, a &quot;fast-forward-disabled&quot; on-demand service, which lets viewers watch whatever show they&#39;re interested in ... without the ability to skip commercials. Given the <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/dish-network-doubling-down-auto-hop-143710" target="_blank">pugnacity</a> with which Dish has pushed its Auto Hop service (which doesn&#39;t just let you fast-forward live TV, but lets you cut out the commercials altogether), it makes sense for Disney to position itself alongside cable operators who are looking to compete with streaming services and are willing to keep the vital second revenue stream&mdash;advertising&mdash;intact.</p>
<p>
&ldquo;This significant agreement ensures that our customers will continue to have access to dozens of ABC, Disney and ESPN networks for years to come and, for the first time, they will be able to enjoy Disney and ESPN programming outside the home,&rdquo; said Cablevision CEO James L. Dolan in a statement.</p>
TelevisionAmcCableCablevisionDirectvDISH NetworkSam ThielmanJames DolanViacomThu, 04 Oct 2012 15:53:44 +0000144186 at http://www.adweek.comTouchdown: Time Warner Cable Cuts Deal to Carry NFL Network http://www.adweek.com/news/television/touchdown-time-warner-cable-cuts-deal-carry-nfl-network-143937
Anthony Crupi<img src="http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-detail/news_article/crupi-nfl-9-21-12.jpg"> <p>
After an eight-year stalemate that kept the National Football League&rsquo;s in-house television network grounded in key markets like New York and Los Angeles, Time Warner Cable on Friday agreed to carry NFL Network.</p>
<p>
According to sources close to the matter, while a contract hasn&rsquo;t been signed, both parties have reached an agreement in principle. As such, it&rsquo;s possible that NFL Network could become available on Time Warner Cable&rsquo;s digital-basic tier before the upcoming <em>Thursday Night Football </em>telecast (Browns-Ravens, Sept. 27).</p>
<p>
(<strong>Update</strong>: TWC and the NFL confirmed the deal in a joint statement released Friday at 4:54 p.m. EDT. The network will begin to go live in TWC homes on Sunday, with full penetration to be reached in time for Thursday&rsquo;s broadcast.)&nbsp;</p>
<p>
&ldquo;We&rsquo;re delighted to have reached an agreement for NFL Network that provides a good value to our customers,&rdquo; said Melinda Witmer, evp and chief video and content officer for Time Warner Cable. &ldquo;We look forward to a long and productive relationship with the NFL.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
Along with the flagship network, subscribers to TWC&rsquo;s Sports Pass also will have access to the kinetic look-in service NFL RedZone.</p>
<p>
Earlier this month, NFL commissioner <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/lazarus-nbc-broke-even-olympics-143426" target="_blank">Roger Goodell expressed frustration</a> with the cable giant, telling a confab of sports-business executives that he wasn&rsquo;t interested in bending on price.</p>
<p>
&ldquo;We&rsquo;ve made it clear to Time Warner that we&rsquo;ll do a market-rate deal and we&rsquo;ll be as patient as we need to be,&rdquo; Goodell said. &ldquo;We think it&rsquo;s in the best interest of their customers [to carry NFL Network], but that&rsquo;s their decision, ultimately.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>
Financial terms were not disclosed. Per SNL Kagan estimates, NFL Network commands one of the highest carriage fees among nationally distributed cable networks&mdash;95 cents per subscriber per month. The industry average is one shiny quarter.</p>
<p>
Before Friday&rsquo;s breakthrough, NFL Network was available in 60 million homes, or roughly half (53 percent) of the U.S. television universe of 114.1 million homes. ESPN, the only other cable outlet to carry live NFL games, boasts a reach of 98.8 million households.</p>
<p>
The TWC deal will bring NFL Net closer to achieving market saturation. The nation&rsquo;s No. 2 cable operator, TWC serves 12.5 million basic-video subs. Also included in the carriage agreement are&nbsp;Bright House Networks systems, which pass an estimated 2.06 million video subs, per the&nbsp;National Cable &amp; Telecommunications Association.</p>
<p>
In August, NFL Network made its first foray into the New York DMA, <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/nfl-network-scores-carriage-deal-cablevision-142819" target="_blank">inking a carriage deal with Cablevision</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
NFL Net last year generated $675 million in total revenue, per SNL Kagan. Affiliate fees accounted for roughly three-quarters of the network&rsquo;s take.</p>
TelevisionCableCablevisionCarriage DealsEspnNational Football LeagueAnthony CrupiNFL NetworkRatingsRoger GoodellSportsTime Warner CableFri, 21 Sep 2012 21:06:41 +0000143937 at http://www.adweek.comFCC Set to Decide on Program Access Rulehttp://www.adweek.com/news/television/fcc-set-decide-program-access-rule-143248
Katy Bachman<p>
Programming lineups at most cable and satellite systems look alike, carrying the same networks and channels, with only a few exceptions. That could be about to change. When the Federal Communications Commissions returns from the long Labor Day weekend, it will have a month to decide whether or not it wants to retire a 20-year rule that requires cable companies that own programming, like Comcast or Cablevision, to make their programming available to their competitors at reasonable terms.</p>
<p>
The rule, called the program access rule, was part of the Cable Act of 1992. Without it, DirecTV and Dish may have never gotten off the ground, let alone newer entrants AT&amp;T and Verizon.</p>
<p>
The FCC has already renewed the rule twice, once in 2002 for five years and the second time in 2007 for another five. The deadline to extend, retire or modify it is Oct. 5. If the FCC does nothing, the rule goes away, leaving cable companies free to cut exclusive programming deals for their networks or to deny the programming to other distributors all together.</p>
<p>
Programming that could be at risk of disappearing from cable systems, satellite services or the telco TV services (AT&amp;T and Verizon) that don&#39;t own the programming or aren&#39;t willing to pony up whatever fees the owners ask, could be Comcast-owned SportsNet, MSNBC, CNBC or Cablevision&#39;s MSG. It&#39;s easy to see how having exclusive programming translates into a competitive advantage for the cable company pitching exclusive sports networks to the consumer, especially the avid sports fan that can&#39;t live without Knicks or Rangers games who would select a pay TV distributor based on sports.</p>
<p>
The debate over the rule pits big cable up against smaller cable systems. Big cable, of course, would like to see the rules sunset, arguing that the original purpose of the rules, to spur competition, has been achieved. &quot;Competition has undeniably taken hold in the multichannel video marketplace, with most consumers having a choice of at least three, and many having the choice of four, or even five [multichannel video programming distributors],&quot; wrote the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, in comments to the FCC.</p>
<p>
While big cable argues that there is more programming available than ever before, smaller cable systems counter that it&#39;s not about the number of programs but which programs are most popular. If such &quot;must have&quot; programming were withheld for competitive reasons, smaller rivals would be hurt.</p>
<p>
&quot;The need of rival MVPDs to have reliable access to the full array of highly popular cable-affiliated, satellite-delivered programming remains as critical today as it was at the time of the FCC&#39;s first sunset review in 2002,&quot; said Matthew Polka, president and CEO of the American Cable Association, which represents 840 smaller and medium-sized independent cable companies.</p>
<p>
It won&#39;t be an easy decision for the five FCC commissioners, especially since an appeals case in 2010 that challenged the rule (Cablevision v. FCC) suggested that the FCC should think twice before renewing it again. &quot;We anticipate that cable dominance in the MVPD market will have diminished still more by the time the commission next reviews the prohibition and expect that at that time the commission will weigh heavily Congress&#39; intention that the exclusive contract prohibition will eventually sunset....We expect that if the market continues to evolve at such a rapid pace, the commission will soon be able to conclude that the exclusivity prohibition is no longer necessary to preserve and protect competition and diversity in the distribution of programming,&quot; the court said.</p>
<p>
An FCC staffer told <em>Adweek</em> the FCC is likely to decide what to do on circulation, meaning the item is unlikely to be an agenda item on the agency&#39;s monthly public meeting on Sept. 28. Some have suggested the FCC could sunset the rule for some programming, but likely not sports programming, arguably the most valuable cable-owned programming.</p>
TelevisionCablevisionComcastFederal Communications CommissionMSGprogram accessFri, 31 Aug 2012 13:57:15 +0000143248 at http://www.adweek.comWGN Becomes Bargaining Chip in Tribune-Cablevision Disputehttp://www.adweek.com/news/television/wgn-becomes-bargaining-chip-tribune-cablevision-dispute-143144
Sam Thielman<img src="http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-detail/news_article/thielman-wgn-8-28-12.jpg"> <p>
Looks like the stakes are getting higher as <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/updated-cablevision-calls-tribune-crooks-trib-says-its-getting-bullied-142935" target="_blank">the carriage dispute between Cablevision and Tribune</a> enters its second week. Tribune&#39;s Hartford, Conn.-based Fox affiliate, WTIC, and its flagship station WGN (based in Chicago) are both dark on Cablevision systems as of midnight Saturday. The two companies&mdash;Tribune, a station owner, and Cablevision, a distributor&mdash;are currently fighting over retrans rates for four of Tribune&#39;s stations, all of which have offered retransmitted signals gratis until now.</p>
<p>
Tribune suggested a starting rate of about 30 cents per sub per month, according to the company (which defined it as &quot;less than a penny a day per subscriber&quot;), which seemed too high to Cablevision (which went with &quot;tens of millions of dollars&quot;). Now Tribune is playing hardball. The company owns The CW&#39;s affiliate stations in six of the 10 biggest markets in the U.S., as well as a number of high-profile Fox affiliates (Hartford-New Haven is the 30th largest market).</p>
<p>
While Cablevision operates mostly in the tri-state area and a few Western states (the company purchased cable system Bresnan in 2010, giving it a presence in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and Montana), giving it some 3.5 million subscribers. WGN approaches full distribution on cable&mdash;the network is in some 80 percent of cable subscribers&#39; homes, though of course New York metro area residents mostly rely on WPIX, which has been dark since last week.</p>
<p>
This is already bad news for Cablevision subscribers in New York&#39;s outer boroughs&mdash;densely populated areas of Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx are unable to receive broadcast signals over rabbit ears since the digital changeover, and Mets fans with Cablevision subscriptions have been out of luck, especially since their team won both games this weekend on blacked-out Trib-owned CW affiliate (and major source of contention) WPIX.</p>
<p>
With WGN and WTIC in the mix, the conflict has definitely escalated, but both sides appeared to be settling in for the long haul. The stakes aren&#39;t ultra-high yet&mdash;The CW&#39;s season doesn&#39;t start until Oct. 11&mdash;but if you&#39;re in Hartford and really like <a href="http://www.fox.com/kitchennightmares/" target="_blank">Gordon Ramsay</a>, Hulu may be your best bet for now.</p>
TelevisionCableCablevisionFoxGordon RamsayHartfordSam ThielmanWPIXMon, 27 Aug 2012 19:05:42 +0000143144 at http://www.adweek.com